Leaderboard

Kevin, EGW is not necessarily to blame for readers misunderstanding what she said. During her lifetime, she despaired over the abuse and misuse of her writings. Hard to imagine the situation nowadays. She has had a toxic influence on the theology of the church simply because she has served as a sort of Scripture or inspired interpreter whether she approved of that or not. The sinful nature of Christ teaching and sinless perfectionism devotees usually refer to her, once the absurdity of their position has been shown from Scripture. Many subjects, such as diet, education, medical ministry, she is a great resource. I just haven't found her helpful when it comes to interpreting Scripture. perhaps that's on me; nevertheless, I am what I am.

Kevin, I haven't addressed the issue of sports at all, nor have hermeneutics been an issue on this thread. Hermeneutics is about the proper interpretation of the Bible and here, for the most part, we are discussing historical theology. The thread on Romans 3:31 would have been a better place to bring up hermeneutics since that thread was about the meaning of Biblical texts. I will not descend into the Sr. White said this or that depths other than to say I have read in their entirety scores of her books, periodical articles, etc. i.e., I have looked at nearly "everything" she said on various topics. Her writings obviously have not been helpful since there exist numerous factions in the church, each with their own favorite quotes to support their position. Sometimes I still do topical studies in her writings which involve looking at hundreds of quotations. Unfortunately, EGW may have made relatively few statements on a given topic but one must plow thorough scores of repetitive quotes in various compilations to discover those few original quotes. Often, they are not helpful at all. To be perfectly honest, I really don't care what she said about this, that, or the other thing. People who do care have identified numerous ways she used Scripture. Rarely did it involve what today we would call exegesis or employ hermeneutical or linguistic principles. She used texts for illustrative purposes, devotionally, often without reference to the Biblical writers intended meaning or context. For example, she said "Transgression of the law is the only definition of sin in the Bible." This quote contributes to the legalistic miasma which permeates the denomination, since "law" is normally interpreted to refer to the Decalogue, which, in its immediate context, it does not. "Commandments" in the writings of John don't refer to the Decalogue, they refer to the teachings of Christ; nevertheless, numerous references to the "commandments" are wrested from their context and interpreted as the Decalogue by SDA. EGW hasn't prevented that, more likely, she contributed to it.

O.K. I am beginning to understand why your have understood Rachel as you did. So, I will wait to see what she says as to how you have understood her. Rachel is a valued person here in this forum. It should be clear that at times she presents views that are not held by SDAs. That is O.K. It seems that in this exchange, she has presented a couple of views that SDAs would not agree with.

Dude, Chill! This is not a discussion of some salvational doctrine. It's a discussion by those who find it an interesting topic. No one is going to be saved or condemned based on their opinion here. If this topic disgusts you, don't read it.

No, this is not my last comment. Rather it is the last comment of a pastor who is ending pastoral ministry and going into retirement. https://atoday.org/part-three-as-i-was-saying-a-valedictory-sermon/ Something to think about in the above.

5 Things You Didn't Know About Millard Fillmore_2 On July 10, 1850, Millard Fillmore was sworn in as president of the United States, following Zachary Taylor's death in office. Here are 5 things you never knew about this president whose own party would not nominate him as a candidate in the following election... Fillmore Was One of the Accidental Presidents Fillmore ascended to the presidency suddenly when Zachary Taylor became ill and was given a mercury compound by physicians that caused blisters and bleeding, leading to his death. Taylor died within days after serving merely 16 months in office, and Fillmore became the new president. John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur and Gerald Ford are the only others who rose to the office of the presidency without ever being elected. He Served Without a Vice President For around 38 years during the existence of the presidency, no vice president served because there was no provision for that under the U.S. Constitution. Fillmore had no vice president, and neither did Tyler, Arthur or Johnson for the entire time they were U.S. presidents. In 1967, the 25th Amendment fixed this glaring error and allowed a president to choose their own vice president as long as members of Congress agreed. Fillmore Personally Fought a Fire While He Was President Both Fillmore and his wife had a love of learning, and they founded the first permanent library at the White House. Fillmore was even known to carry a dictionary around with him to work on improving his vocabulary, which is something that probably wouldn’t happen these days. In December 1851, the Library of Congress caught on fire, and he was reported to have helped to battle the blaze and later approved a bill that would pay to replace all of the books destroyed in the fire. His Support for the Compromise of 1850 Delayed but Did Not Stop the Civil War Tensions were high among the states about slavery during this period, so Fillmore approved the 1850 Compromise. This bill let New Mexico and Utah decide whether or not to permit slavery and added California as a non-slavery state, but it did not lower the tension between the slave and non-slave holding states. The arguments over the issue of slavery and enactment of this new legislation might have postponed a war between the states, but the Civil War finally broke out in 1861. Fillmore Never Won an Election for President Because Fillmore supported the controversial Compromise of 1850, his own party refused to nominate him to run for reelection in 1852 and chose Winfield Scott of New Jersey as their candidate. Fillmore was nominated by the Know-Nothing Party to run for president in 1856 but was handily beaten by James Buchanan. Fillmore only received 22 percent of the popular vote and won Maryland’s electoral votes, which wasn’t nearly enough.

Your last two posts have a lot of useful information, and it can be used as safeguards to our study of both the Bible and Mrs. White. And frankly it can be applied to the Bible just as well as to Mrs. White. There are 3 ways we can read the Bible. Two of these ways we frequently see in both the Bible and Mrs. White and one is rarely seen but is expected. The first view, which we don't find that often in how later Bible writers and Mrs. White is Exegesis: What the text meant to the original community that the Bible writer or editor was writing to. The other two which we find frequently in the Bible and Mrs.White, are analogy or application to a similar situation and homiletical or as you put it illustrative applications. You are spot on with that and we need to be aware of these. Mrs.White refused to answer questions when people wanted an exegetical answer from her to solve controversies. She would either say things like "My writings are not to answer questions such as what is the meaning of the daily in the Bible" or tell them to study it out, that exegesis is our job not hers (and she seemed baffled that we were not taking advantage of this. She was very interested in exegesis but knew that was not her job so could not spend much time on it. She appears to enjoy the little time she could spend on it and seems, at least to me, to be jealous of us for our freedom to do exegesis, and again baffled that we were not excited about doing it and wanted to be lazy and look for a prophet who would give us the exegetical answer.) I need to get going, but the way she is used for last generation perfection and a sinful nature Jesus is horrible. Yes, she saw a last generation righteousness but it was NOT what the last generation people theorize. They are looking for the last generation to be a small group of people who have gained such victory over sin that is of a new quality then ever before. Mrs. White sees people in each generation who have developed a deep unshakable love for Jesus that can withstand all opposition. Then there are those who have accepted Jesus but who's faith is still developing and they may have fallen asleep before developing that deep unshakable love for Jesus. Then there are people who have not accepted Jesus but who could potentially accept him, and those who have committed the unpardonable sin, those who have so hardened their hearts towards Jesus that there was nothing more Jesus could do for them. Her view of last generation is that the two middle groups end up going either into the first group of unshakable love for Jesus or the last group of total rejection. But our last generation people refuse to look at this. Similarly with those who see Jesus has having the fallen nature. They use this for their last generation righteousness. But to Mrs. White Jesus had his own nature unlike Adam before the fall and unlike us after the fall. She saw him as fully human to all or weaknesses but not having the bend to sin that we have. When discussing these two topics and we disprove them from the Bible so they turn to Mrs. White, I then turn to Mrs. White and show them that these views are disproven from Mrs. White as well.

I do not believe the Father destroyed Jesus resurrection body. Many years after His resurrection, when He appeared to John, He appeared with a body. In fact His hair had turned white. It was not white when He was crucified. Describing events which will take place at the glorious return of Christ, for those who belong to Christ, Paul said the dead would be "raised incorruptible" (immortal), and the living would be "changed" in an instant. 1 Corinthians 15:52 "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (NKJ) Exactly what the "change" is, we just don't know. Paul says we will have a "spiritual body". 1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown (in the grave) a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." (NKJ) Paul also called it "our heavenly house". He described three states: 1. This earthly house - flesh body 2. naked - without a body (=dead) 3. clothed again with a "heavenly house" - the new spiritual body (2Cor cpt 5). 1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." (NKJ) So we will be "changed" in the same way that Christ was changed when He was resurrected. That does not mean that we will also be 100% glorified in the same way, to the same degree that Christ was glorified by His Father. Hope I've explained that OK

While Mrs. White gave warnings about sports, you must look at all she said and did and not isolated statements here and there. Besides the statements, she donated land to PUC for a sports field and she loved to attend games there. But she enjoyed the games and seeing students do their best. She did not take favorite sides or cutthroat competitiveness. In a similar way what you said in the above quotes looking at "SDA Fundamentalism brought about by bad hermeneutics" come from the same problems as your comments on Mrs. White and sports. Frankly I am having a very hard time in seeing the difference between the bad hermeneutics of what you label as "SDA Fundamentalism" and your own hermeneutics as expressed in your posts here, except they want to cling to their conclusions as everlasting truth to push on all, and you want to cling to your conclusions to put down Mrs. White. And I see both uses of bad hermeneutics as both based on Protestant Fundamentalism as articulated in The Fundamentals as both of you take your quotes and hang all your beliefs on the quotes instead of asking questions like "Who was she addressing?" "What else did she say or do about this topic?" "Did her views grow over time?" I keep pointing out here that I have read a number of letters that she wrote to those who were using their bad hermeneutics and forming what you call "SDA Fundamentalism" and telling them that they were wrong.

Gustave, We honestly don't know what happened after Jesus went to heaven. Like Gregory said earlier, God is way beyond our understanding. Does Jesus still have a physical body? We don't know. Is His Spirit here among us until the end of the age? Yes; that we can be sure of. How does that work? I don't have a clue. We can hypothesize all we want; but we just don't know. We do know (I think) that He will have a physical body when He returns to earth. "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Phil. 3:20-21) Verses like this make me suspect that both Christ and we will have glorified physical bodies in the Kingdom.

Gustave, I do not understand Rachel as saying that.

5 Things You Didn't Know About The Grateful Dead_2 On July 9, 1995, the rock band the Grateful Dead played their last concert at Soldier's Field in Chicago. Here are 5 interesting things you didn't know about this popular group whose followers called themselves “Deadheads.” The Band Originally Performed Under Another Name The Grateful Dead began their career as the Warlocks, a group formed in early 1965 from the remnants of a Palo Alto, California jug band called Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions. The Warlocks featured Jerry Garcia, Ron “Pigpen” McKeman, Bob Weir and Bill Kreutzmann. Phil Lesh joined the group later. The band changed their name to the Grateful Dead around 1965, after which drummer, Mickey Hart, and lyricist Robert Hunter, joined. They Used a Folklore Dictionary to Come Up With the Band’s Name Garcia reported that nobody initially liked the name Grateful Dead for the band. They discovered it while leafing through a Funk and Wagnalls, and it just struck him as the perfect name. It turned out that it was a good choice. Garcia believed parents would not like the name and those who were just curious about a band with that name would be filtered out. Jerry Garcia Played Amazing Guitar With Part of One Finger Missing While vacationing at the Santa Cruz Mountains with his family at age four, Garcia had his finger against a piece of wood as his brother chopped it. Unfortunately, his brother miscalculated and cut off Garcia’s middle finger to about two-thirds of the way down. Garcia still became an amazing steel guitar player and reportedly bragged about his missing finger as a child. The Band Only Hit the Top 10 Once In 1987, “Touch of Grey” was released as a single and was the only record by the Grateful Dead to hit Number 9 on Billboard’s Hot 100. After 20 years as a group, they reached the Top 10 with their album “In the Dark” in 1987. Some other songs by the Grateful Dead such as “Casey Jones” or “Eyes of the World” were complete flops on Billboard but are now considered classics. There is a Species of Cockroach Named After Jerry Garcia In the late 1990s, a Dead-loving taxonomist discovered a new species of cockroach and named it “Cryptocercus garciai” after Jerry Garcia. In 1995, just three months after his passing, two astronomers named an asteroid after the late singer as well.

Pray for us ? 1Th 5:25 Brethren, pray for us.

The Scripture forbids oysters. Does that mean Leviticus Chapter 11 is "radical fundamentalism". The Israelites - just coming out of Egypt, probably thought so.

Another example of “inclusive reckoning:” The story of Peter and Cornelius. 1st Day: An angel appeared to Cornelius “about the ninth hour of the day” telling him to send messengers to get Peter who was at Joppa (Acts 10:3-8). 2nd Day: As the messengers sent by Cornelius neared the house “on the morrow ... about the sixth hour” (noon) Peter saw a vision. In response to the vision Peter received the messengers and they spent the night there (verse 9). 3rd Day: And on the morrow Peter went away with them” (verse 23). 4th Day: “And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea.” Peter met Cornelius, who then told him of the angel’s visit.” “Four days ago,” said Cornelius, “I was fasting unto this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing...” (Verses 24,30). When he recounted the story to Peter, Cornelius said, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour.” Count it for yourself! Seventy-two hours (three full days) had passed from the time that Cornelius saw the vision, until he told the story to Peter - NOT 96 hours! Yet he says, “Four days ago.” This would mean that one could say “three days ago” and mean 48 hours!!! Before dawn of Friday - when Christ was taken into custody at the darkest hour of night - until day-break on Sunday is just over 48 hours.

Thursday nite (arrested) - Friday day - Friday nite - Sabbath day - Sabbath nite - Sunday at dawn = day. Any part of a day - is a day, in Hebrew ancient time. Besides. One cannot spend "the third day" in the tomb, AND "rise the third day". 1 Corinthians 15:4 “He rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” Matthew 16:21 “be raised again the third day” Matthew 17:23 “the third day he shall be raised” Matthew 20:19 “the third day he shall rise again” Mark 9:31 “shall rise the third day” Mark 10:34 “the third day he shall rise again” Luke 9:22 “be raised the third day” Luke 13:32 “the third day I shall be perfected” Luke 18:33 “the third day he shall rise again” Luke 24:7 “the third day rise again” John 2:19 “in three days” Acts 10:40 “Him God raised up the third day”

SDAs would agree that Christ took on human flesh at the incarnation. In addition, we would say that we really do not know what it means when the Bible talks about God being a spirit. IOW, the nature of God is simply beyond our human understanding. We do not speak of God as being a ghost, in the common understanding today.

Correct. Prior to His incarnation, He existed as Spirit - just like His Father. He died as a human being - with flesh. He was resurrected by His Father. After He was resurrect, He still had "flesh" - and bone. Luke 24:39 "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (NKJ) 40 days after He was resurrected, He was taken up to Heaven. On Pentecost Christ was "glorified" by His Father. It was on that day that Christ was "made spirit". The Father poured Himself into and through His Son completely and powerfully. Christ then poured out His spirit upon His waiting disciples. John the Baptist prophesied, speaking of Christ - "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Stinsonmarri: The quote in the above post was made by Gustave, in a post on the 2nd page of this thread, on Saturday at 6:48 PM. Contrary to what your post seems to say, I did not make the above cited statement. As you are probably aware, during the lifetime of Ellen White, that is prior to her death, her books were often revised by people who edited them. As is well known, early SDA leaders in this developing denomination rejected the idea of that Trinity. Some debate exists as to exactly where Ellen White was, both as to those early years, and in her later life. However, it is generally believed that in those early years, she was not a trinitarian and that in her later years, she moved into a doctrinal understanding that was Trinitarian.

It has been said here that some SDAs seem to believe that the so-called 1844 prophecy requires that Christ be crucified in 31 AD. It is true that some believe such. To me, that belief requires a wooden, extremely literal understanding of the 1844 prophecy. I Reject that approach. To me, the 1844 prophecy could have Christ being crucified any time in the 30 - 33 AD time range. Yes, I prefer the 31 date, but, I do not believe that such a date can be supported by an 1844 prophecy. To state such, to me is circular reasoning.

Fundamentalism: As I have read the various posts on fundamentalism, I have had to refresh my understanding of the meaning of the word. I have always understood that it had a range of meanings. However, in my personal understanding I have most often associated it with Darby, The Fundamentals, and the 1920s or so. In reviewing the various meanings of the word, I have been drawn back to its origin and what is associated with it outside of the more narrow view that I have most often associated with it. This has been good for me. Now having said that, in our discussion with Gustave, as to his application of that word to Ellen White, we should seek to understand how he has used it and not assume that he is using it in exactly the same manner that we might use it.

I don't comment too much on prophecies like Daniel 7-12. I just don't believe we will know for sure until the characters come to life before our eyes, the events take place, and Christ speaks to us - telling us "This is it!" There are some clues. And I do believe some of the prophecies were dual - repeating in the final days before Christ returns.